Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

An independent, Capita-funded remedial adviser has been appointed to identify service delivery issues and to allow us to continue to hold Capita fully accountable. Around 147 surge staff have been deployed in this crisis. The Government remain committed to maintaining resource levels. No team members will be withdrawn from that surge team until service levels are permanently fixed. As I have said in my previous answers, we are using all commercial levers at our disposal, including withholding those payments, so that Capita is held accountable. We are looking closely at options for bringing the pension scheme in-house.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Numerous constituents of mine have had the same problems with the civil service pension scheme run by Capita. One example is Ruth, whose husband worked for the Ministry of Defence and died in service nearly a year ago. She has been waiting 11 months for a death-in-service payment and pension. Capita promised to have this resolved, with all bereavement cases done by the end of August. It broke that promise. This week, she is still waiting. This is utterly unacceptable. I welcome the Minister saying that there will be penalties for Capita, but does she not recognise that this is such a clear example that outsourcing does not work? Will she ensure that Capita is not given contracts like this ever again?

[Sally Jameson]

I thank the hon. Member for raising her constituent’s experience, which I am sorry to hear about. I have many similar examples in my constituency, as I know have Members across the House. I hope to provide a more substantive update in October. As I have said previously, Capita’s performance is totally unacceptable. I will not defend it, and I will continue to hold Capita to account every single day that I am in office, until the service levels are brought back up to an acceptable standard and all our constituents have received the pensions that they should already have had—in the hon. Member’s constituency case, 11 months ago—and I will continue to do that. We are looking at bringing the pension scheme in-house, and we are looking at the different viable options to do that. In our manifesto we committed to the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, and we are all committed to doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing that idea to this House. I will be happy to put that to Capita when I next meet it, and if she wants to write to me with her case, I will happily ensure that it is escalated.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The next national adaptation programme, NAP4, is not due until 2028, but the wildfires and droughts we saw this summer and the impending extreme El Niño show that we cannot wait that long. Will the Minister commit to taking urgent action to tackle resilience before then and give our farmers, communities and householders the support they need to face the challenges of drought, wildfire and flood risk?

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely recognise the importance of the point that the hon. Lady has made; she has made it previously. The Government have established and tested response protocols in place for all severe weather events. The impact of each is often very different based on different factors, but I give her an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these issues. We are working across Government to ensure that our response is proportionate to the nature of the threat we face from climate change.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure, Ms Butler, to serve under your chairship.

Clearly, Brexit has been a disaster for Britain—the sooner we acknowledge that, the better our conversations will be, because we will then be able to move forward. It has been economically disastrous. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) said, it has been a slow puncture; in fact, it has been a huge slow puncture, taking 4%, 6% or 8% off our GDP, which costs every household in the country enormously in real terms. It makes us all much worse off.

In North Herefordshire, business owners have spoken about the additional barriers they face when trading with Europe and the admin created by the supposed reduction in bureaucracy. Brexit has been an economic disaster, but it is not just economic: environmentally, we are diverging from Europe, and in 28 areas of law, we now have weaker protection for our natural environment. Socially, politically and culturally, Brexit has been poisonous. It has catalysed and reinforced a toxic political debate, leading to polarisation, the proliferation of disinformation, political short-termism, and a discounting of the rights, opportunities and needs of young people in particular. The UK is now poorer, weaker and more isolated in a context in which we have a completely unreliable and unstable partner in the US President, and we have war on the eastern border of Europe with Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Chowns]

I am sorry, but because of time I will not.

We are also facing the climate crisis barrelling down towards us. All of these issues require stronger co-operation with our closest neighbours. In that context, more than 10 years on from this disastrous wrong turn in British politics—this monumental act of self-harm—it is time to change course. I welcome the noises that the Government have made about resetting. That is certainly a start, but we need to be honest about what we have lost. We need to recognise the importance of co-operation and working together politically as well as economically. We need to recognise that the majority of the British people think that we would be better off back in the European Union, and that is why I believe we need to set out a path to rejoin. The best future for the UK lies within Europe. With the summit coming up, I hope that the Minister will be genuinely ambitious and deep in setting out the path forward.

Direction of Government

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The climate crisis is hitting hard already, and I was glad to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge that in his statement. We have just had the hottest summer since records began, farmers are facing the worst arable harvest since records began and the Met Office tells us today that extreme summers such as this year’s have been made 130 times more likely by burning fossil fuels. In that context, will the Prime Minister remember his words of last year, when he warned against the “siren voices” taking us down the path of “dependence on fossil fuels”? Will he stick to the manifesto promise not to drill any more oil and gas, and will he rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw, because the climate damage they would create hugely outweighs any possible benefit and will lead to more disasters such as we saw on the Nepal-Tibet border just last week?

[The Prime Minister]

I am ready to work with the leader of the Greens in this place, because I carry from my last role into this one a clear commitment to a carbon-neutral future. I do not resile from that in any way; I am proud of what I have done on that front. What the hon. Member has said is almost the opposite of what the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) said a few moments ago, but the wrong approach here is to be one or the other. We are going to have to find a way to make a transition from oil and gas to a renewable future, and that does not mean that it is all one or the other. There has to be a process where we can make a transition and do it as effectively and affordably as possible.

MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this very important debate.

Serving as a Member of Parliament is a huge honour and a privilege. It is more than a full-time job—and it should be, because it is a job that is about public service. That should be the only reason that anybody puts themselves forward for election to this place, and it should be the only reason that anybody has the privilege of serving in this place. One hundred per cent of our available time, energy and skill should be focused on serving our constituents—that and absolutely nothing else. It is really very simple: there should be no time available in an MP’s day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs. Our constituents’ needs for us to serve and represent them absolutely can fill every moment available, and more.

It is utterly shocking to me that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—and yes, I notified him that I would be naming him in this debate—has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of “service” as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday we heard that he was paid £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene—

[Jim Shannon]

Immoral.

[Dr Chowns]

And, indeed, immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person—well, more than the average person; nurses, teachers and others who dedicate their lives to public service—will in a year. It is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) that it is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern Parliament. One hundred per cent of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents.

Why is it that this total anachronism endures and that those who do not have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about doing all sorts of other things that do not contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are motivated solely by what is simply personal greed? Let us call a spade a spade. If somebody is doing this sort of “work”, for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation: personal enrichment and greed. That has no place in a public servant, still less a public servant who has the honour of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of Parliaments. We must stop it.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East: we need a full ban on second jobs. Yes, we hope that Members will bring outside experience into Parliament, but let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life, to have the honour of serving here, and let us take steps in our parties to ensure that we do so. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused on serving our constituents. Otherwise, there is a total conflict of interest: are we serving ourselves or serving the public? We must be here to serve the public.

I call on the Minister and the next Prime Minister to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism. We must not count on the individual conscience of every Member, given that we can clearly see, unfortunately, that a tiny handful do not share a commitment to public service. Let us ensure that the baseline and benchmark is that nobody has a second job, and that everybody who has the honour of being here is 100% focused on serving our constituents.

Cabinet Office

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for introducing the debate so well. He makes many excellent points, including that we face a wide range of threats to our security and resilience. Clearly, we face threats from hostile actors and not just through conventional means: he talked about cyber-warfare and the threat of disinformation. He briefly touched on the effects of the pandemic on our country. The covid pandemic, which killed nearly a quarter of a million people, was the greatest threat to human health for many decades. Recognising pandemic preparedness as hugely important within the security and resilience framework is key.

Another key threat to our country’s security and resilience, which does not receive nearly enough attention, is climate breakdown. It is not just the environmentalists but the ambulance workers who say that, and the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee’s national security assessment itself says that ecosystem breakdown poses a clear threat to national security. The Committee on Climate Change has pointed out that we are woefully ill-prepared as a country for the effects of climate breakdown.

We urgently need to take more action to avoid causing climate change. Equally, we urgently need to take far more action to recognise the threat to our national security and resilience posed by the effects of climate breakdown. That was brought home to us in hugely clear terms last week, as we faced the second major heatwave of the last month or so. That heatwave led to record call-outs for the ambulance service—even more than under covid.

A couple of weeks ago, I spent time with the London ambulance service, which told me that the May heatwave saw its highest number of ambulance call-outs, even including covid, and that terrible record was exceeded last week. We have to recognise the reality of the effects on human life and livelihoods and the effects on our national security and resilience caused by these issues.

This is not just about the health effects. I spoke to numerous constituents over the weekend about the effects that the appalling temperatures faced by our students are having on schools. Clearly, we need urgently to put in place maximum temperatures for schools and workplaces and take action to ensure that that is followed through.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member accept that there is a certain irony when the same people who are concerned about climate change and temperatures rising have campaigned for air conditioning to be taken out of buildings because of its energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions? We cannot have it both ways, can we?

[Dr Chowns]

I honestly do not recognise the caricature that the right hon. Gentleman paints. Technology exists to provide both heating and cooling in ecologically friendly ways, and that is absolutely what we need going forward. We need far better building standards so that we build buildings that adapt and are suitable, and we need homes that are fit for the future. That is essential.

The Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s independent adviser—has set out repeatedly that these solutions are available and has set out the things that we need to put forward. The Committee has also set out repeatedly, as have any number of people over any number of years, the fact that the costs of inaction far exceed those of action. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made that point previously in relation to other security challenges, and it applies with knobs on to tackling the challenge of climate breakdown. Twenty years ago, Professor Nick Stern set out clearly that the costs of inaction far outweigh—many times over—the costs of action to address these risks. After 20 years of our heads collectively being in the sand as a country, we are reaping the whirlwind of that inaction.

I call on the Government and the Cabinet Office to recognise the reality that tackling climate resilience must be a central plank of any strategy to protect national security and resilience. We need a Minister in the Cabinet Office whose responsibility it is to put in place that work and to take a cross-Government approach. This is not a siloed issue and cannot be dealt with in one single Department; it needs a cross-Government approach.

We need a comprehensive strategy to prepare the NHS for new public health challenges. We need to invest in flood protection, because we face not just extreme heat but flooding incidents of increasing frequency and severity. We have all seen what a disastrous effect that has on the economy as well as on lives and livelihoods.

We need to develop a comprehensive extreme heat strategy, a national drought plan and a farmer-led transition to climate-resilient food production. Our farmers are crying out for that support, and they too are on the frontline of the security and resilience challenges that the reality of climate breakdown places on us. We need to strengthen our transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure and water infrastructure. Last week, we heard about nuclear power stations going offline in France. Train companies were saying that nobody should travel unless it was a matter of life and death. Water shortages are becoming more and more frequent. The collective, long-term and strategic approach to tackling climate resilience must be a core plank of national security.

Tackling climate breakdown is not just an environmental issue but a central plank of security and national resilience. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of taking action now. Will the Minister commit to putting in place a national strategy? Will there be an individual identified in the Cabinet Office who leads on it? Does she recognise that we must invest now or pay far worse costs later?

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

All I will say is that it is important that we rebuild our industrial infrastructure and make sure that we not only maintain but strengthen our sovereign capabilities, not only for now but with forward-looking tech and investment. The Government are determined to do that.

A foundation of our national security is our ability to assess, mitigate, respond to and recover from the risks that we face, should they manifest. These risks could come from anywhere. They could be natural hazards, as we have all been experiencing over the last few days, or they could be deliberate attacks, disease outbreaks or other civil emergencies.

[Dr Chowns]

The Minister has not mentioned climate change. Climate change is not a natural hazard; it is a human-made major risk.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I agree, and it is important for the hon. Lady to understand that we are integrating climate change risks into our work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the leading Department on work on climate adaptation, not mitigation. It is important that lead Departments can focus on the issue at hand, and DEFRA is doing adaptation.

[Dr Chowns]

One of the key points that I tried to get across in my speech is that this has to be a whole-of-Government effort. DEFRA cannot put in place a strategy to adapt the health service to the reality of climate change. It cannot put in place a strategy to adapt our schools, our transport infrastructure or our energy infrastructure to the reality of climate change. Does the Minister not recognise that this has to be a whole-of-Government effort, and that it is not something that DEFRA can hold? That is precisely why we need a Cabinet Office Minister to lead on climate resilience.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The hon. Lady points out that adaptation is a cross-Government, cross-departmental thing. The way that the UK Government are organised means that Departments that are responsible for school buildings or transport deal with the adaptation issues that crop up in those Departments. I do not disagree with the hon. Lady’s analysis, but while the Cabinet Office does have a co-ordinating role, I do not necessarily think that having a Minister co-ordinating it would make an awful lot of difference.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As I confirmed in my statement, more than 300 individual documents were put before the ISC for its consideration of proposals from the Government for redaction. There were a small number of redaction hearings towards the end of that process, when agreement was sought between the Government and the Committee, and all redactions currently published in the documents have been made with the full agreement of the Committee.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Like many of us here in this Chamber, I have not yet had the time to read the 1,000-plus pages of material released today, but the release shines the light of disinfectant on the political culture of how we treat the victims and survivors of heinous abusers of women and girls, and on the scandal of how Mandelson, despite being matey with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was allowed back into the highest possible office. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that this sorry episode in British political history leads to a fundamental change in political culture, so that the voices of women and girls who survive abuse at the hands of people like Jeffrey Epstein are always listened to and put front and centre?

[Darren Jones]

I certainly agree with the sentiment of the hon. Lady’s question. In relation to the time made available to read the documents, I refer her to the general debate on Wednesday, which she is perfectly able to attend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Fenton-Glynn, I am glad you have found your feet, because I could hear you shouting earlier. We will not be doing that next week. I call Dr Ellie Chowns.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in a desperate and doomed attempt to pander to Donald Trump, despite knowing about Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Epstein, and his links to foreign states. The Prime Minister resisted vetting, and then took a “dismissive” and extraordinarily incurious attitude to it, compromising national security, and now he has thrown a civil servant under the bus to save his own skin. All this from a Prime Minister who pledged to restore trust and integrity in Government, but who has repeatedly betrayed the trust of voters and let the country down. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the best thing that he can do to restore trust and integrity is to take true responsibility and resign?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me correct what the hon. Lady said. There was no dismissive attitude to developed vetting. I knew that the post was subject to developed vetting, and it was subject to developed vetting. What did not happen was me being told of the UKSV recommendation. That was a serious error of judgment. Had I been told, the appointment would not have gone ahead.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I will reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made: I wish I had never heard the name Peter Mandelson. He should not have been appointed. It is right that he was sacked. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s experience and expertise on the issue, which I admit I do not have.

Yesterday, in my question to the Prime Minister in his statement, I focused on Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, but I briefly mentioned the issue of other parties seeking to gain political capital. Much to the chagrin of the reasonable, quiet people of this country, those parties asked for the Prime Minister’s resignation, yet again causing chaos, to which the Opposition are so addicted, for the governance of this country. [Interruption.] The Opposition grumbled at that, as they are doing now, so I will take this opportunity to clarify.

If we ignore the social media trolls and bots and ignore the self-interest of the billionaire-owned right-wing press, we see that the quiet, reasonable majority of people do not want a change of Prime Minister. As one lifelong Tory said to me yesterday, “I see the Prime Minister is still here. That is a good thing.” They are grateful that this Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I was a teacher; I can out-talk anyone. Those people are grateful that this Prime Minister has not drawn our country into a mad, dangerous conflict that the Opposition would have immediately joined.

People value a stable Government who focus on the matters that they really care about. They want a stabilised economy. They want reform to special education needs and disabilities and support for schools. They want our NHS rebuilt and waiting lists to drop. They want our roads fixed. They want their wages to increase. They want affordable homes. They want their communities to be safe and welcoming, and they want violence against women and girls tackled. People are fed up of politics and of this navel-gazing over process. They are fed up of more politicians politicking and point scoring. They are tired of it, and why?

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Gardner]

I promise I will come to the hon. Member in a minute. I am in the flow. People are tired after 14 years of the previous Government chopping and changing Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State. We had the blonde bumbler and the loopy lettuce. This country was on its knees, its people exhausted. The people do not want more of the same. Despite the Opposition’s constant efforts, we will not let them manufacture more chaos.

[Dr Chowns]

In reference to the point that the hon. Member has just made, is she familiar with the YouGov poll that regularly asks the UK population how well they think Keir Starmer is doing as Prime Minister? Is she aware that the latest data shows that 70% of the UK population think that he is doing badly?

[Dr Gardner]

Polls can generate different answers depending on how the questions are formed. In other polls the Prime Minister is still a lot more popular than certain other Members present in this House.

In reference to the Opposition’s chaos, I will speak up for the civil service and express empathy for Sir Olly Robbins. In the whirl of Prime Ministers and Ministers under the previous Government, among the covid partying and profiteering—for which the Conservatives have never apologised, and for which I will never forgive them—the civil service clearly did its best to stop this country sinking into the mire. In such chaotic conditions, it is no wonder that a culture developed that decisions would be made without fully informing Ministers or Prime Ministers. That was partially because under the Conservatives, civil servants could not be sure who would be the Prime Minister or Minister that month.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Before I begin my remarks on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, I want to stress my profound respect for the victims and survivors of the disgusting child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. I very much hope that they are in the minds of all of us in the Chamber as we have the debate. We should remain mindful that the chain of events that has brought us to this point stems from their bravery in standing up and speaking out to expose Epstein’s crimes.

What is at stake here is the future of the Prime Minister; there are certainly questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. The Prime Minister’s sole defence appears to be that he just was not told, but it is clear that he did not understand the security vetting process, and actually he did not want to understand it. He did not want to do the security vetting process in the first place. He created a culture of political pressure that overrode that process. Finally, he has thrown a civil servant under the bus for failures that should be placed clearly at his own door.

The Prime Minister did not clearly understand the process. There was a process of UKSV doing the developed vetting and then of the Foreign Office considering that. We have had Sir Olly Robbins giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, saying that there was a degree of grey area and that the case was borderline. He said that he only had a verbal briefing—he did not even see the piece of paper that made it clear that UKSV felt that Mandelson should not pass developed vetting—and that he decided that mitigations could be put in place in that system. It is clearly a process that the Prime Minister did not understand, despite the fact that at least one hon. Member has said today that this was very clearly notified to him in advance.

The Prime Minister did not even want to do the process. Again, it is clear from Olly Robbins’s testimony that, even before he took up his position, there was a tussle between No. 10 and the Foreign Office about whether to undertake the vetting at all, with No. 10 just wanting to rush through the appointment and the previous permanent secretary having to dig his heels in to insist that the vetting was done. The FCDO was subsequently hassled by No. 10 to get the appointment done before Trump’s inauguration, without any curiosity or caveats about whether the vetting was passed. The Prime Minister asked no questions. He displayed terminal professional incuriosity and wilful ignorance. That is totally unacceptable.

It is clear that no value was placed on the vetting process by No. 10, despite the PM now claiming that he is completely staggered that he was not told about it. Indeed, Olly Robbins today said that No. 10 had a “dismissive attitude” towards the vetting, putting in place a culture that established

“a very, very strong expectation”

that vetting would be passed. There was no culture of paying attention to due process; there was simply a culture of getting a political appointee in post as quickly as possible with minimal scrutiny.

That did not apply just to Mandelson, either. Again, as we heard today from Olly Robbins, it applied to Matthew Doyle, with a request coming from No. 10 to put him into a position without even informing the Foreign Secretary. Now, the PM has a temper tantrum and sacks the civil servant because he is furious about that. The country is furious with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has previously said that he takes responsibility for mistakes made in his team, but there is no accountability on show today. There is no responsibility taken by the Prime Minister. This is just one of numerous errors of judgment by the Prime Minister. He should resign.

Security Vetting

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have accepted that that was my decision and I have apologised for it.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Prime Minister says it is “staggering” and “unforgiveable” that he was not told about the vetting, but what is really staggering and unforgiveable is that he appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting—that he appointed Peter Mandelson knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What is unforgiveable is that the Prime Minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors. The Prime Minister has not accepted a simple “sorry” from his civil servant—he thinks that is inadequate. The country thinks that a simple “sorry” is inadequate from him. Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgiveable errors of judgment—and resign?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out to the House the facts of what happened in this particular case. I am staggered and I find it unbelievable that I was not given the information I should have been given.

Middle East

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is precisely why we are working with other countries to de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open. As I said in my statement, that will not be easy, but notwithstanding that challenge, we will continue to do that work.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

In the Prime Minister’s 17-page statement, there was not one word of condemnation for the actions of the US, despite the fact that it started this illegal war. Last week, Trump threatened to wipe out an entire civilisation. The Prime Minister rightly condemned the horrific Israeli attacks on Lebanon, but we all know that the war criminal Netanyahu just ignores what we say, because there are no consequences. Will the Prime Minister take action, put sanctions on Netanyahu and withdraw all permission for the US to use UK bases and UK airspace, to make clear that we will not be an accomplice to the rogue actions of Donald Trump, which endanger us all?

[The Prime Minister]

The US is using the bases to attack the Iranian capability to fire missiles into the region, including at our citizens and our nationals. Members will have seen the images—going into hotels and the bases where our military are based. Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that we should reduce protection for our people in the region and expose them to attacks that they would not otherwise be exposed to? That, to me, would be a dereliction of duty, and I will never do that.